Now that I am retired having been many years a magistrate with a long awareness of the declining freedoms enjoyed by the ordinary citizen and a corresponding fear of the big brother state`s ever increasing encroachment on civil liberties I hope that my personal observations within these general parameters will be of interest to those with an open mind. Having been blogging with this title for many years against the rules of the Ministry of Justice my new found freedom should allow me to be less inhibited in these observations.

Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.

Friday, 29 April 2016

My first memory of being involved with the police was when I was about 12 or 13 years old. Outside the council flat where I was brought up I idly threw a pebble towards a telegraph pole when waiting impatiently for a friend to turn up. A police motorcyclist happened to ride by at that very moment and when asked I casually admitted to him that I had indeed thrown the pebble.......about the size of an old fashioned shilling. He took my name and address. The long and short of this sorry tale is that I appeared with my father some weeks later at the local police station to be given a stern warning from a sergeant about any similar future hooligan conduct. The next occasion I had imprinted on my mind about police activity was when shortly after becoming professionally qualified and days after I had bought but couldn`t afford a shiny new red sports convertible I had to collect it from the local police car pound where it had been taken for illegal parking. There was a deep ten inch scratch along one side. When showing this to the officer in charge, who would have put fear into Mike Tyson by his size, after I had paid to collect it he asked me in a most threatening manner, "Are you accusing the police of damaging your car?" I declined to answer and drove off. We have all read about and sympathised with the Hillsborough victims` families. Some might have been shocked by revelations of the police actions at the scene and the subsequent conspiracy to cover up their failings. And some including this former magistrate will not have been the least surprised. In just five minutes cruising the web this morning I have noted six articles which are deeply disturbing and revealing about the current state of policing integrity or the lack of in this country. These are concerned with senior officers and officials. For all ranks the figures are truly eye opening. West Midlands Constabulary eg has sacked 40 officers and staff for misconduct over the last four years. An example of the procedures required when disciplinary matters are considered within a police force is provided by these 29 pages from Derbyshire Police. *Yesterday it was reported that a Borough Commander in the Met Police was under investigation for gross misconduct. At this point of course it is solely allegation but the definition of gross misconduct is such as to be interesting. It is defined by the Met as, "Gross misconduct is defined as a breach of the standards of professional behaviour so serious that dismissal could be justified." Just yesterday after the Hillsborough verdict the newly appointed temporary Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police gave notice of resignation owing to her recent history in Manchester. Why on earth was she placed in post by the local Police and Crime Commissioner responsible? Surely her background must have been checked and found wanting and if not the incompetence is breathtaking. And he is not the only PCC to have had questions asked of competence and integrity. In Hampshire the PCC is facing serious questions also. Cleveland, the county where its Chief Constable was sacked in 2012, now has its PCC and Police Authority involved in a public dispute relating to matters arising from that dismissal. Not to be outdone, in Northamptonshire PCC Adam Simmonds is finding it awkward to extricate himself from allegations of illegal leaking of data.

The recently established College of Policing in its attempt to become a learned professional body such as the General Medical Council or the College of Optometrists has drawn up a working Code of Ethics. I wonder how long it will be before it is involved in its own controversy?

Over the years there have been public inquiries into many individual actions of police eg the murder of Stephan Lawrence. If any other so called profession had a similar history of incompetence, malfeasance and misconduct concerning senior personnel there would have been such outpourings from the great and the good not to mention public pressure that there would have been established a public inquiry headed by a Lord this or a Lord that into the whole operation of policing in this country encompassing all the strands encountered by the Independent Police Complaints Commission now renamed Office for Police Conduct. There has been in recent years a renaming of the Border Agency and Criminal Records Bureau by the Home Office. It is a moot point whether apart from window dressing there has been any worthwhile benefit of such an exercise. Of one thing there is no doubt. There is an urgent need to clean out the Augean Stables.

ADDENDUM 4th May 2016 * It seems this sorry story has some way to run.

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

When speaking in support of or giving a character reference for an offender it is not unlikely that the supporter would submit his/her name, qualifications and relationship to said offender in order to enhance the magnitude, depth, sincerity and beneficial effect of the words spoken or written. If that supporter is a magistrate it would be most unwise to mention being such an office holder. The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office recently released the following statement:-

“Mr John Kavanagh, a magistrate appointed to the Bury and Rochdale Bench,was subject to a conduct investigation. The Lord Chancellor and Mr Justice Leggatt found that Mr Kavanagh had inappropriately signed a character reference for a party to court proceedings using the JP suffix. TheLordChancellor and Mr Justice Leggatt considered that this action amounted to misconduct and have issued Mr Kavanagh with formal advice”.

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

Magistrates decisions to vary curfews for events such as impending holidays booked or special family functions often incur public criticism for their benevolence. Members of the senior judiciary have, from time to time, reminded
magistrates` benches to be cautious when agreeing to vary the terms of a curfew
order to suit the defendant whatever the reason. At the crown court where there are fewer curfews imposed judges perhaps don`t realise the implications of such decisions. My experience sitting on appeals at crown court reinforces that impression. However HH Judge Peter Blair QC at Swindon Crown Court decided that an offender`s attendance at Glastonbury justified lifting of a curfew for that purpose.HH decided that his offence was serious enough to demand a twelve month custody order. He found, as so often is the case, that that could be suspended. Surely that was sufficient leniency in such a matter? One doesn`t need to be a hang and flog `em red faced overweight right wing Tory or Peter Saunders of abuse victims' charity NAPAC to find lifting a curfew in such a situation a perverse decision . One could even be a socially aware blogger.

Monday, 25 April 2016

I have read with interest the recently published report by Transform Justice " Unrepresented defendants in the courts : a travesty of justice?" It certainly is of some interest even although it omits a thorough analysis of the whole undertaking. In effect it offers a "hearsay" approach which some might say is better than nothing. Questions asked are certainly of importance for anyone who has concerns that some aspects of the system are failing the true test; to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent which translates or should translate as "It is far better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted".

The suggestions put forward require changes in basic procedures, the collation of data and some little government expenditure. Last year I interviewed several of my former colleagues on this self same topic........MAGISTRATES` THOUGHTS ON UNREPRESENTED DEFENDANTS . The questions posed were by and large similar to those of the Transform Justice report. The answers from the magistrates were carefully considered and perhaps more appropriate conclusions were forthcoming insofar as the required additional cost was insignificant but the improvements for defendants tangible.

The provision of written material to be sent with the court summons would, they agreed, be of enormous assistance to those people contemplating self representation. All the aspects described in the report where knowledge might be lacking could be incorporated in the mailing. Such documentation could of course be made available on line for minimal cost. It seems that Transform Justice`s interviewees were unable to think outside the box.

The other innovation my interviewees considered with some favour was more controversial; namely an increased inquisitorial role for magistrates in order to level that ever diminishing equality of arms. There is no doubt that there is a tendency for government to see an increasing conviction rate as a proud boast of its successful law and order policies. For that to come at the price of losing our sense of what foreigners used to call "the British sense of fair play" would be a loss for us all.

Friday, 22 April 2016

One of the benefits of our supposedly open society is that scandals involving public bodies or personalities are no longer so easily brushed under the carpet. From lecherous avoricious senior police officers, drug taking bank chairmen, lying M.P.s, incompetent quango chiefs and paedophilic pediatricians to terrorist sympathising government advisors, and despite Leveson, the shit concealed under layers of bureaucracyby some organisations is still being revealed to the dismay of those who continue exclaim that corruption levels in this country are minimal cf the rest. Perhaps Kent Police and its PCC agree and perhaps they`re complacent. I would hazard an opinion that in every police force there is a hard core of officers who show scant disregard for the ethics of the job they`ve chosen for a career.

It is hard to find anything satisfactory to observe in this case only to note that it appears that no senior officer is under investigation for either incompetence or involvement. Once again it is an organisational error. As far as the lawyer involved in this; I would hope that s/he is investigated by the appropriate professional authority to determine whether or not her/his hands are snow white.

ADDENDUM 28th April 2016

In the old days it would have been called "a stitch up". But this time it failed. Just another everyday story of police folk.

Thursday, 21 April 2016

When considering drink driving cases and a defence lawyer began questioning the accuracy of the intoximeter I was usually reminded by the legal advisor that the bench was obliged to assume that the instrument was correctly serviced and calibrated according to instructions. I have found nothing on line which dictates the legal requirements of an actual machine`s accuracy and required frequency of calibration apart from this guide. This week another famous sportsman is in court on a motoring offence. Danny Cipriani`s lawyer is questioning inter alia the accuracy of the machine used to test his client`s breath alcohol. 'We can't tell by the reference to some of the readings that the machine was reliable.' Prosecutor
Katie Weiss contested the application, insisting the court had enough
evidence the machine was working properly to continue the case".

Howard Ribble, chief magistrate; a man not to be trifled with, will give his decision tomorrow. I am quite surprised at that need for consideration while he makes his own investigation into the defence allegations. If a bench cannot assume an intoximeter`s accuracy for the purpose of prosecution there will be many offenders considering whether they should spend hard earned cash to consult expert legal opinion. The CPS will have its own headache with which to contend.

ADDENDUM 26th April 2016

The defence application that there was no case to answer has been thrown out..........and quite right too!

Wednesday, 20 April 2016

I do think that lay benches when confronted by the wealthiest and highest earning offenders are simply afraid of exercising their lawful powers with respect to financial penalties imposed. They seem seem unable to grasp that if an offence has a range of fine between two bands or eg a single band B [one week`s wages] that that indicates the level of fine which should be imposed irrespective of the offence. So an individual earning £500 per week who is guilty of a Level 3 offence [maximum fine permitted £1,000] would be fined £500 with a reduction of one third if s/he had pleaded guilty. On April 18th I referred to the case of a Premier League footballer whose fine was unrelated to his enormous income.It seems that last week I had missed the case of another such footballer who plays for Leicester City F.C. He became a totter and was duly disqualified for the statutory six months but once more the financial penalty imposed for the speeding offence which put him over the limit seemed to be totally unrealistic. He was fined just £200 for the Level 3 offence Band B. His lawyer was apparently as inept as the bench was cowed. According to the report , "His lawyer Imogen Cox told the court his wage - reported to be around
£55,000-a-week - was "above the level for the maximum fine" and said he
would be able to pay any fine "within the day". Why oh why was not the fine imposed which his income demanded; £666 assuming the guilty plea?I make no apologies for stating that such failure to punish the highest earners to the full financial level allowed by parliament brings the law into disrepute and is a further encouragement for those who claim that lay benches are barely fit for purpose thus furthering the arguments of those who would prefer to see our lower courts presided over by full time civil servant government employed District Judges{M.C.} Fined according to means has been the principle that parliament has long applied to our legal system. But the impression is there that the treatment of those on very high incomes is at the cost of a stand still or reduction in the standard of living of the average person. We are in a period of doctors overturning the Hippocratic Oath in preference for increased wages using patient concern as their justification, of austerity being used as the reason for reducing incomes of those most in need, of house prices at such levels as being unaffordable for many, of a government trying to frighten us that in fifteen years we`ll all be £4,300 poorer and for lay benches to add to a local population`s impression that the the rich get richer and it`s the poor what gets the blame is a sure recipe for a disgruntled population to consider that voting for a thinly disguised Marxist government in 2020 would be no bad thing.

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

The judiciary relies on language. Such a comment might seem superfluous; don`t we all rely upon it? Judges especially at the higher levels of their profession must use language as a fencer uses a foil......a delicate yet deadly apparatus to be applied with precision. The notorious solicitor advocate, known as Lord Harley etc etc found himself in rather hot water when appearing before HH Judge David Wynn Morgan in 2014. As a consequence he took action against the judge whilst action was taken against him by the Solicitors Regulation Authority which has not yet published any decision. Meantime Harley has in turn issued papers against the Solictors Disciplinary Tribunal.

Last year the original judge involved HH Judge Wynn answered these complaints by Lord Harley before the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. On 2/7/2015 it published the following:-

"2 July 2015 – His Honour Judge David Wynn Morgan

The Lord Chancellor and the President of the Queen’s Bench
Division, on behalf of the Lord Chief Justice, have dismissed complaints
against His Honour David Wynn Morgan, a Circuit Judge sitting at
Cardiff Crown Court following an investigation into his conduct. The
Lord Chancellor and the President of the Queen’s Bench Division found
that HHJ Morgan was entitled to challenge the appearance and status as a
legal representative of Dr Alan Blacker, also known as Lord Harley and
this did not amount to misconduct. HHJ Morgan has been issued with
informal advice regarding how to deal with such situations in future.
This is not, however, a form of rebuke or disciplinary sanction".

Returning to my opening point about language; the sentences I have highlighted seem puzzling. There has been no rebuke or disciplinary action against him but he has been issued with informal advice.....Why has this sentence been published unless JCIO indeed intended to put into the public domain its censure however informal. If I were His Honour I would not be too pleased at the shades of meaning implied.

ADDENDUM 3rd May 2016

With regard to the notorious so called Lord Harley there has been a further uncomfortable twist in the tail (tale?) of said lord. Read the report here.

Monday, 18 April 2016

Premiership footballers who appear in court on whatever level of offending must expect the procedings and outcomes to be of public interest. It might be the case that such intrusion would be much diminshed if, as fifty years ago, they were being paid around the average workman`s wage, but when their average wage is £44,000 weekly media interest is par for the course. Driving offences attract intrusion like no others because the majority of us are drivers and we can relate outcomes to our own incomes. Unlike in Switzerland where exceedingly wealthy individuals flouting traffic regulations eg speeding, can have enormous fines imposed this country has a laudable principle of fines according to means. Driving not in accordance with a license is a Level 3 offence [£1,000 maximum] with 3-6 penalty points imposed with a fine of half a week`s wages. Papiss Cisse who plays for Newcastle United was recently in court where he pleaded guilty to [I presume] driving not in accordance with a license aggravated by other offences. He was fined £220 and with other fines and costs left the court £547 poorer not forgetting 4 penalty points. Perhaps somebody can explain why the bench did not fine him £666 for the offence and increase the number of points handed out.

My time on the bench never involved me in any matter dealing with a multi millionaire sporting personality but had I been I would have sought to make a case for the highest financial penalty to have been imposed within the law and within a structured argument for that decision. For that bench to apparently not to have done so is a matter of regret. For the many thousands in the local area it will have brought the magistracy into disrepute. It demonstrates that equality before the law is limited by the appearance of some being more equal than others.

Friday, 15 April 2016

From time to time during my "active" years there would be a sitting that was just made to be the subject of a post but owing to pressures of time and other matters never got past the "for future blog?" folder. The following is one.

I suppose for colleagues who sit the minimum number of times ordered by the Chancellor; a half day every two weeks,
many sittings remain in the memory by virtue of their relative rarity. For me
and others similar being fairly frequent sitters by virtue of the courts`
demands and our availability many such sittings drift away from the conscious
mind after a week or two; many but not all. Such was a Friday 13th last year
noted in my diary as being certainly unlucky for some who were before us. Our
listed trial had completed early and we were feeding off the crumbs of Court
1`s table.First there was Mr A. who was brought
in on a warrant having failed to appear for his DV trial the previous day when
surprise, surprise he had been found guilty in absence of common assault on Mrs
A. Mr A. was no youngster experiencing the pain of early marital difficulty. He
was 47, about 5ft 8” and looked extremely capable of delivering a good right
hand to anybody who crossed him and that included members of the bench as when
he was asked to identify himself he launched into a tirade re recent events.
Our L/A whose feistiness sometimes erupts prematurely from her 5ft nothing
frame was perhaps a bit premature in threatening him with all manner of
judicial retribution but eventually he answered the question as to why he had
failed to attend with the bland statement that he had got the dates mixed up
and anyway didn`t their honours know that the previous year a jury at Crown
Court had taken only ten minutes to find him not guilty of inflicting GBH on
his wife. When asked whether he had more to say than getting his dates mixed up
he shook his head. He grudgingly agreed also that he had received due
notification of the hearing in addition to being in possession of his bail
form. He denied that he had heard the previous bench`s warning of “trial in
absence” a note of which was in the court file. Our position was made clear by
the L/A who told the court that we could re-open the case and set a date for a
retrial or proceed to sentence. We decided on the latter course. This
pronouncement fanned Mr A`s fuse which had been slowly igniting. His objections
became a tirade against all present. The chairman gave a nod to the very
efficient usher who called for a security guard just prior to seeing one
through the glass door panel going past in the corridor outside. She opened the
door to request aid. So far Mr A`s violence was confined to the English
language. Our usher returned and whispered to our L/A within our hearing that
owing to our courtroom not having a secure dock SERCO would not attend. The
chairman said that that was the prime reason why they must attend. Mr A had
quietened down for a minute. He probably heard the usher saying that the SERCO
person had told her it wasn`t in “the contract”. After a hurried conversation
our L/A announced that the court would be transferred to Court 2. For those in
the know Court 2 had a secure dock. We retired. Later the usher told us that Mr
A had not answered the tannoy and was not in the building. A warrant was issued
not backed for bail.

And then there was Elijah. He had
pleaded guilty to obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty by
refusing to be searched for drugs. Strip searched at the police station he had
been pharmaceutically clean. He was twenty two years old, handsome with smooth
black skin, had a perfect smile of perfect teeth and was athletically built. My
female colleague whispered that with looks like that he should have been a film
star advertising toothpaste except he wasn`t in Hollywood, he was in court and
he had two pages of previous consisting mainly of theft, criminal damage and
possession of Class B. He had experienced everything the justice system could
offer except imprisonment as an adult. He was asked in simple terms to mitigate
although as soon as he began to talk it was apparent he had the intellectual
and verbal skills to match his appearance. When he had finished the chairman
commented that it was truly ironic that having many convictions for possession
he was standing in the dock for refusing to be searched when he had nothing on
him. He smiled. He had been in police custody since 2.00am that morning so we
deemed his £50 fine served but imposed half the CPS costs plus surcharge. On
being told the money was due there and then he replied, “No problem”, smiled a
perfect film star smile at my female colleague and was directed to the payment
office. I think my colleague was still blushing when we left the building.

Thursday, 14 April 2016

People of a not so certain age when
discussing current social mores will sometimes use the phrase, "in my
day" to describe changes which in their opinion are for the worse for each
of us as individuals and for us all as "society"; the entity for
which Maggie T doubted the existence.

Aged relatives who lived through the
horrors of World War 2 on active service and the Blitz at home have described
to me [and I presume others can claim similar discussions] that if not
"law" but certainly "order" was encouraged if not enforced
by individuals be they family, neighbours, bus conductors, train guards or park
rangers to name a few. Unless there was direct violence or a risk of such,
admonishment from such individuals was enough to oil the wheels of public
civility and avoid confrontation with most people including rowdy teenagers
most of the time. Street tidiness was a job for local
authorities and street cleaners were a common sight keeping the environment
clean and tidy and also providing low level employment for those who would
otherwise be unemployed or unemployable. A clean and tidy neighbourhood has
been shown to reduce disorder especially low level disorder which can blight
many lives. The "zero tolerance" concept pioneered in New York City
is a direct result of this thinking.

The Keep Britain Tidy Campaign began in
1954 as an initiative of the National Federation of Womens` Institutes. Some
might remember the iconic posed picture of Margaret Thatcher tidying up in
Trafalgar Square. The Litter Act of 1983 consolidated all previous legislation.
Prosecutions for littering are brought under section 87 - Offence of Leaving
Litter - of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The offence is:

"A person is guilty of an offence
if he throws down, drops or otherwise deposits any litter in any place to which
this section applies and leaves it.” However, a person convicted of this
offence could be liable to a maximum fine of £2,500 (a level 4 offence on the
standard scale). Current criminal prosecutions are conducted by local councils
under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2006.Prison awaits those who refuse to pay the fine or are guilty of culpable neglect in not paying.

And that was why Natasha McCabe who left a refuse bag in the street ended up at Manchester Magistrates` Courts. She had pleaded guilty to failing to pay a Fixed Penalty Notice of £80. In the end her littering cost her a total of £319.

It is indeed a sad reflection on our
conduct when the criminal law must be applied to such basic anti social
behaviour. Singapore has the reputation of being the world`s cleanest city. In
1992 Corrective Work Orders were introduced as an alternative to fines up to
S$1,000 [£500] for littering and offenders were required to wear distinctive
clothing whilst cleaning streets for a specified number of hours.

There is a vociferous lobby which would dearly like to do away
with short custodial sentences. At a stretch, to coin a phrase, they would
relax their opposition for violent offenders being removed from society. But
generally even when prison is a last resort for the oft quoted council tax
defaulters or similar they refuse to acknowledge the need for the final
sanction of loss of liberty. Those holding such opinions are
often “green” in their approach to society`s problems and their attitude to
litterers is unforgiving. What then must the courts do to an offender in this
regard who refuses or neglects to pay the fine imposed after conviction or in
absence for ignoring a fixed penalty notice? Are those who consider such
sentencing inappropriate able to impose their own solution in such cases?
Perhaps they would have him treated as a naughty boy.

Without entering into
any religious context the original precept for the individual and
society to rub along with minimal friction is to do to others what one would
ask them to to do to oneself. And that includes taking one`s rubbish home to
dispose of carefully [including cigarette ends]

Wednesday, 13 April 2016

On 29th March I posted with the heading "QUESTIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEES" and made reference to Muslim applications to become J.P.s and their being representative of the society in which they work or reside.........a requirement for appointment. Last week was published a headline making survey on the opinions and attitudes of British Muslim citizens; "What British Muslims Really Think". A programme on this subject will be shown tonight on Ch 4 T.V.

Judicial statistics published by the MOJ have for some years categorised office holders by "ethnicity" but not by religion and for a century or more religion or lack of has had no bearing on appointment. This admirable procedure was IMHO based upon the simple acceptance that only proven qualification and ability were necessary for interrogation as to suitability although inquiry until recently was made of political preference or membership of a masonic lodge. In my own application to the Bench I deliberately omitted answering those two questions. My form was returned with an accompanying letter informing me that unless the questions were answered my application would be halted there and then. I returned the form duly completed to the satisfaction of the Appointments Committee. The core of the survey mentioned above is that eg 39% of respondents agreed that wives should always obey their husbands, 31% believe that it is acceptable for a British Muslim to have more than one wife, 23% support the introduction of Sharia law in Muslim dominated areas, 52% believe homosexual acts should be illegal. With increasing concern within the Labour Party over anti- semitism is it a coincidence that the survey revealed that more than a quarter of respondents felt
Jews were “responsible for most wars” compared to a 6 per cent average
across the UK while almost four in ten felt Jews had “too much control
over global affairs,” compared to a ten per cent average over the
general population?

We are constantly informed that magistrates are or should be representative of their communities. That being the case, of the 4.6% of magistrates who are self classified as "Asian" ie about 900, many hundreds must be assumed as being Muslim. Richard Page ex J.P. is appealing against his removal from the magistracy. Whether or not he succeeds the issue of particular religious belief being compatible or not with sitting as a magistrate must be faced especially in the light of the survey. Of course it is not unlikely that the cry of "racist" will be heard but this is nothing to do with race. If a Christian acting on his belief re the suitability of same sex couples` suitability for adopting a child is chastised we are IMHO faced with the prospect of making inquiry of all applicants whether they hold beliefs that would preclude their being able to fulfil the judicial oath. That Muslims generally according to that survey are more likely to hold opinions contrary to their more secular and/or free thinking non Muslim neighbours is a factor that cannot be ignored especially when such opinions are more suited to the 19th rather than the 21st century. It is highly likely that Muslim representative organisations will seek to discredit this survey but there have been others including a previous Ch4 Dispatches programme with not dissimilar findings. Until enough secular living Muslims and/or those who have an enlightened attitude to their religion feel confident enough to speak out and interpret their religion for modern living, established Muslim spokesmen are liable to increase rather than decrease any prevailing or anticipated inter communal tensions.

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

The story continues: otherwise known as the decline of the CPS as an effective organisation. Television companies are always seeking effective ways of providing programmes at lower costs without losing audience share. One of the first such programmes now included in the genre "reality TV" was in 1964, when the Granada Television Company produced "Seven Up";
broadcast interviews with a dozen ordinary 7-year-olds from a broad
cross-section of society that inquired about their reactions to everyday
life. Every seven years, a film documented the life of the same
individuals during the intervening period, titled the Up Series, episodes include "7 Plus Seven", "21 Up", etc.; it is still ongoing. One of the most recent reality TV shows was ‘The Prosecutors: Real Crime and Punishment’ broadcast on BBC last month. This blog has made its own view of the CPS quite clear in the last couple of years and many times previously at its now defunct site. Just as with all the similar programmes in various disguises on the police service and other organisations the objective of the subjects is to show themselves in the best possible light considering the circumstances under which they work. For them it is cheap propaganda. But propaganda can go only so far. Yet again the failings of the CPS have been highlighted this time in a BBC report and this in the week when another group of alleged rapists has been acquitted owing to failures of the police and prosecution to make required use of information at hand. They must have been blinded by the myopic approach under their so called victims` charter to pursue the alleged perpetrators. The problem IMHO lies in the CPS operating what in so many words seems to be a "target" culture. We have seen such principles in public services before. The NHS was [is?] notorious for outcomes to have been distorted by such a culture. Police forces have been thoroughly discredited for such a means to an end. At lower levels of importance town councils and their employees have used the same approach with traffic management as their excuse for the imposition of all manner of restrictions and offences. The methodology at the CPS when government has a non cabinet member as Victims` Minister is hardly likely to change in the near future. Sensible outcomes of convictions and improved efficiency will come about only when such a ridiculous ministerial post is abolished and the balance of justice is allowed to take its course without the state i.e. the CPS being deprived of funding, being sidelined, pushed, cajoled and pressurised from such sources. Indeed one might comment that the CPS itself is a victim.

Monday, 11 April 2016

It is inevitable and rightly so that until the referendum is over we will be subjected to figures, statistics and more figures. Statisticians, economists and politicians despite their exhortations of what is or is not the better course to take, know no better than any of us what will result of a decision whether IN or OUT. The choice for the most intellectual or most ignorant of us is the underlying philosophy of our being master in our own little British semi or just another voice within the cavernous walls of a European mansion. The argument will be won or lost on numbers and ideas easily understood and relevant to almost unthinking analysis. Supposed to be published today by Grassroots Out, levels of EU nationals in British prisons are IMHO an example of such numbers although the document itself has evaded my search.First of all the most recent figures 2014 on Europeans in British prisons :-

That table makes a total of 4,746 from, as I understand, last year`s figures of which 4,067 are from EU states with today`s total number of prisoners at 85,398. GO asserts that the numbers of foreign prisoners in British jails has soared since the former Soviet client states of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Poland and Romania joined the EU whilst those countries have seen a fall in their own prison populations. Between 2002 and 2014 EU nationals in this country`s prisons have, according to GO, risen from 1,763 to 4,252 [Apparently different periods from above]. Prison numbers in Romania, Latvia and Poland have fallen by 3,882, 3,092 and 2,997 respectively since their accession to the EU. UK prisons have seen the numbers of Poles, Romanians and Lithuanians increase by 1,800%, 1,100% and 900% respectively over the same period. These statistics and others similar will be converted by Leave campaigners into pounds spent which would have been better spent on matters over which we had direct control. No doubt this blogger and others will be posting future posts on aspects of REMAIN or LEAVE according to their individual interests.